This gets better and better. No search was ever conducted for the bag on the 6th floor but it was found. The authorities searched the entire building for suspicious items. You also want us to believe that someone who worked in that building and could explain the bag found on the 6th floor for was used for a work-related purpose just remained silent about it forever because "they were not asked" about it? The bag the authorities indicated that the assassin used to carry the weapon that killed the President of the United States? Wow. No one would volunteer to say that was just a bag that was used for some work-related purpose? Unreal. Even your star witness Frazier to this day, who has been asked about the bag, never said that any such bag had a legitimate purpose for being in the building? And you have no interest in the fact that the bag you claim was carried into the building can't be accounted for in any way? Nothing to see there. How about this? It wasn't found not because no one searched for it, but because it wasn't there. The bag that Oswald carried is the one found on the 6th floor. That accounts for Oswald's bag. There was no bag along the size described by Frazier because he was wrong in his estimate of its size. End of story.
You also make a very silly comparison between Oswald denying that he carried a bag along the size estimated by Frazier and denying the one found on the 6th floor. Can you understand why these are different situations? Apparently not. If Oswald carried a shorter bag along the lines of the one estimated by Frazier that contained some non-incriminatory item like curtain rods, he would have every incentive to not only admit it but direct the authorities to its location. It would assist him to tell the truth in that situation. If, however, he carried a longer bag, such as the one found, and it contained the rifle, then he has every incentive to lie about it. Oswald lied about the bag. So figure out why that is important. And your star witness Frazier is the one who asked Oswald about his lunch. Oswald confirmed to Frazier that he did not have it that day, but later tells the DPD that he did. All of this aligns perfectly with Oswald attempting to cover up the fact that he carried the longer bag with the rifle into the building. It is entirely contrary to his interests to deny carrying a shorter bag that could assist him when found. Do you think a person typical acts in their own interest or contrary to their own interest?
No search was ever conducted for the bag on the 6th floor but it was found.Stupid remark. So what?
The authorities searched the entire building for suspicious items.So a flimsy bag, possibly in the trash somewhere, would be a suspicious item to you?
You also want us to believe that someone who worked in that building and could explain the bag found on the 6th floor for was used for a work-related purpose just remained silent about it forever because "they were not asked" about it? Do you have any idea just how many people simply do not want to get involved in a murder case? Just how naive are you? Besides, how could all those other TSBD even have known that special interest that was given to a paper bag?
The bag the authorities indicated that the assassin used to carry the weapon that killed the President of the United States? Wow. The bag the authorities indicated...
about a year after the fact, in the WC report which hardly anybody in the TSBD probably would have read. Victoria Adams was unaware of the lies the WC told about her until Barry Ernest told her, decades later.
No one would volunteer to say that was just a bag that was used for some work-related purpose? Unreal. Just like no one came forward to say they saw Oswald walking from the roominghouse to 10th street. Go figure!
And why did the bag even have to have a work related purpose?
Even your star witness Frazier to this day, who has been asked about the bag, never said that any such bag had a legitimate purpose for being in the building?What bag are you babbling on about? If he was ever asked that particular question, which I doubt, how in the world would he even know. You really need to stop making up pathetic arguments to support your idiotic opinions.
And you have no interest in the fact that the bag you claim was carried into the building can't be accounted for in any way? Nothing to see there.Indeed, nothing to see there. Oswald had all morning to dispose of the bag. Detective Lewis, who took Frazier's polygraph, speculated that Oswald might have simply thrown that bag away. Lt Day panicked instead and tried to argue that Oswald might have used an old bag (the one Frazier saw) to conceal the bag found at the 6th floor and it's content.
It wasn't found not because no one searched for it, but because it wasn't there.Then show me the report which confirms that they searched for a bag? Btw, if they searched the building so thoroughly, how come they completely missed Oswald's jacket in the Domino room and the clipboard he left on the 6th floor? You are so all over the place, it's beyond ridiculous and embarrassing.
The bag that Oswald carried is the one found on the 6th floor. That accounts for Oswald's bag. There was no bag along the size described by Frazier because he was wrong in his estimate of its size. End of story. As per usual an opinion expressed without a shred of evidence to support it, which ignores that two people who actually saw the bag Oswald carried said the 6th floor bag wasn't the one they saw.
You also make a very silly comparison between Oswald denying that he carried a bag along the size estimated by Frazier and denying the one found on the 6th floor. Can you understand why these are different situations? Apparently not. Bla bla bla.... Oswald was never shown the 6th floor bag and he was only asked if he brought a
long bag (whatever that means) to work. That could be either the bag he actually carried or the one found on the 6th floor. Can you comprehend that? Oswald simply denied that he brought a long bag to work. Period.
If Oswald carried a shorter bag along the lines of the one estimated by Frazier that contained some non-incriminatory item like curtain rods, he would have every incentive to not only admit it but direct the authorities to its location. It would assist him to tell the truth in that situation. If, however, he carried a longer bag, such as the one found, and it contained the rifle, then he has every incentive to lie about it. So much BS speculation about Oswald saying that he did not bring a long bag to work. Pathetic!
Oswald lied about the bag. So figure out why that is important.Just because you claim that he lied, doesn't make it true or important. Your opinion is not evidence.
And your star witness Frazier is the one who asked Oswald about his lunch. Oswald confirmed to Frazier that he did not have it that day, but later tells the DPD that he did.Well, if he really told Frazier there were curtain rods in the bag then he could hardly tell him that the bag contained his lunch. Oswald may well have told Frazier the curtain rods story as a way to cover up his true reason for wanting a ride to Irving on Thursday, which was to reconcile with Marina (she and Ruth Paine both testified they believe that was the reason for the visit).
All of this aligns perfectly with Oswald attempting to cover up the fact that he carried the longer bag with the rifle into the building. BS... With enough speculation and assumptions you can make everything align with anything, and you are constantly speculating and making assumptions. With you special brand of "logic" you could just as easily say that Oswald getting out of bed that morning aligns perfectly with his intention to kill Kennedy. Perhaps, for just once, you should try to deal with actual evidence instead of this crap.
It is entirely contrary to his interests to deny carrying a shorter bag that could assist him when found. Do you think a person typical acts in their own interest or contrary to their own interest?When did Oswald deny carrying a shorter bag?
